Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 (BIP-110) has entered its mandatory-signaling phase, but miners have sent the required signal in only a small fraction of recent blocks—raising doubts about whether the contentious ruleset can gain enough support to sustain a rival chain.

According to a BIP-110 monitor, at block 961,632 on Saturday miners signaled support in just 51 of the preceding 2,016 blocks, equivalent to 2.53%. That falls well below the 55% threshold the mechanism expects for early activation. While nodes enforcing BIP-110 began rejecting blocks that did not set version bit 4, standard Bitcoin nodes continued accepting both signaling and non-signaling blocks—creating a potential split between enforcing and non-enforcing participants.

Key takeaways

• BIP-110 moved into a mandatory-signaling enforcement window at block 961,632, with enforcing nodes rejecting blocks lacking version bit 4.
• Miners signaled only 2.53% of the time in the preceding 2,016 blocks—far under the 55% level referenced for early activation.
• A BIP-110-compliant minority chain briefly emerged but quickly lagged behind the dominant chain.
• The proposal aims to temporarily restrict on-chain data to reduce storage and bandwidth pressure, but critics warn it could force rule-divergent behavior across the network.

Mandatory signaling begins, but miner participation stays low

The immediate consequence of BIP-110’s start is procedural and practical: once block 961,632 was reached, nodes enforcing the proposal began applying stricter block acceptance criteria. Specifically, they reject blocks that do not set version bit 4 in their block version field.

By contrast, ordinary Bitcoin nodes continued following the existing consensus rules, accepting blocks regardless of whether version bit 4 was set. That difference matters because it turns a signaling experiment into an enforcement stress test—one where participants can end up on different views of “valid” blocks depending on which rules they choose to enforce.

The BIP-110 monitor data also suggests the enforcement did not immediately attract sufficient miner support to sustain momentum. With only 51 signaling blocks out of 2,016 before the window began, proponents would need a significant change in miner behavior to avoid a situation where a BIP-110 branch advances slowly—or stops producing blocks—while the non-enforcing majority chain continues.

What BIP-110 is trying to change on-chain

Written by pseudonymous developer Dathon Ohm, BIP-110 proposes additional consensus restrictions that are intended to last for roughly one year. The proposal is designed to target the way Bitcoin scripts carry data, particularly where large payloads increase the workload for network participants.

In broad terms, BIP-110 would:

• Limit most new output scripts to 34 bytes.
• Cap OP_RETURN outputs at 83 bytes.
• Restrict certain data pushes and witness elements to 256 bytes.
• Temporarily limit several Taproot-related features.

The proposal also includes an exception for legacy outputs: unspent transaction outputs created before activation would not be affected. That detail is important because it reduces the risk of instantly “breaking” already-existing UTXOs, shifting the impact toward new transaction construction after the proposal takes effect.

Supporters have argued that these limits would discourage practices they view as non-monetary—such as inscriptions and other uses that can increase storage and bandwidth costs for node operators. The proposal’s framing is that congestion and resource pressure should be addressed at the consensus level, rather than relying on voluntary policy restrictions.

Why the current phase tests a contentious consensus change

Mandatory-signaling windows are designed to show whether miners are willing to align their blocks with a new ruleset. In this case, the numbers are stark: 2.53% signaling in the monitored window preceding block 961,632 implies that miners are not broadly coordinating around BIP-110.

The result is a practical dilemma for supporters: without a substantially higher share of miner participation, an enforcing chain may struggle to grow. The source notes that a minority branch did appear but quickly fell behind the dominant chain, underscoring how difficult it is to maintain a separate chain when the majority of block production does not follow the same rule signals.

This is also where the proposal’s broader network implications come into focus. If enforcing nodes reject transactions or blocks that non-enforcing nodes accept, a consensus disagreement can emerge—not necessarily as a permanent fork, but as a period in which participants experience different validity rules.

The milestone is therefore less about whether BIP-110 is “right” in principle and more about whether supporters can make a contentious consensus change real without broad miner backing. If that coordination fails, the episode may still be valuable as a signal of how powerfully miner alignment is required for soft-fork style proposals that rely on version-bit signaling and enforcement behavior.

Pushback from major voices and a possible fallback path

The proposal has faced strong criticism from prominent figures in the Bitcoin ecosystem. The article notes that Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor and Blockstream CEO Adam Back argued that BIP-110 could divide Bitcoin and lead nodes to reject transactions that the network’s existing rules would otherwise permit. Earlier coverage on Cointelegraph also highlighted the ongoing dispute around spam and data-heavy usage of block space.

On the technical timeline, BIP-110’s deployment schedule uses version bit 4 and assigns block numbers to key states. The mandatory-signaling window runs from blocks 961,632 through 963,647, during which enforcing nodes reject blocks that do not include the signal. The specification then defines block 963,648 as the beginning of its “locked-in” state and block 965,664 as the point when its transaction restrictions take effect.

The source also points to discussions of a wider contingency. On Aug. 1, Bitcoin developer Chris Guida rebased preliminary code for a proof-of-work change originally written by Bitcoin Knots maintainer Luke Dashjr. Guida described the code as a contingency if miners opposed BIP-110, while stating that no activation date had been set. The details underscore that supporters and builders have considered alternatives if the signaling track does not achieve the needed coordination.

For now, however, the immediate reality is that the signaling signal is weak, and the cost of running enforcement rules without matching miner behavior is that compliant blocks may not keep pace with the chain produced by the majority.

Going forward, investors, traders, and node operators should watch how miner signaling evolves across subsequent windows, whether the enforcing chain continues to lag or disappears entirely, and whether developers continue to refine any contingency approaches if consensus support remains fragmented.

Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 110 entered its mandatory-signaling phase at block 961,632 on Saturday, with miners signaling support in just 51 of the preceding 2,016 blocks, or 2.53%, well below the 55% threshold required for early activation, according to the BIP-110 monitor.

Starting at block 961,632, nodes enforcing BIP-110 began rejecting blocks that did not set version bit 4, while ordinary Bitcoin nodes continued accepting both signaling and non-signaling blocks. A minority BIP-110 branch subsequently emerged, but quickly fell behind the dominant chain.

The low signaling rate makes a sustained rival chain unlikely without substantially greater miner participation. With relatively little mining support, a BIP-110 branch could advance slowly or stop producing blocks altogether.

The milestone tests whether supporters can advance a contentious consensus change without broad miner backing, potentially separating enforcing nodes from the dominant chain and escalating a dispute over how Bitcoin’s block space should be used.

BIP-110 seeks temporary limits on Bitcoin data

Written by pseudonymous developer Dathon Ohm, BIP-110 proposes additional consensus restrictions lasting roughly one year.

It would limit most new output scripts to 34 bytes, cap OP_RETURN outputs at 83 bytes, restrict certain data pushes and witness elements to 256 bytes, and temporarily limit several Taproot features. Unspent transaction outputs created before activation would be exempt. 

Supporters said the restrictions would discourage inscriptions and other non-monetary data that increase storage and bandwidth costs for node operators. 

The proposal’s critics, including Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor and Blockstream CEO Adam Back, have argued that the proposal could divide Bitcoin and cause nodes to reject transactions permitted under the network’s existing rules.

Related: Bitcoin nodes running BIP-110 crosses 2% as spam wars heat up

The proposal uses version bit 4 for miner signaling. Its deployment schedule sets blocks 961,632 through 963,647 as a mandatory-signaling window, during which nodes enforcing BIP-110 reject blocks that do not carry the signal.

The specification defines block 963,648 as the beginning of its locked-in state and block 965,664 as the point when its transaction restrictions take effect. 

BIP-110 proponents have also discussed a more extensive fallback. On Aug. 1, Bitcoin developer Chris Guida rebased preliminary code for a proof-of-work change originally written by Bitcoin Knots maintainer Luke Dashjr. 

Guida described the code at the time as a contingency if miners opposed BIP-110, but said no activation date had been set. 

Magazine: 10 weirdest things ever tokenized… including farts

The Clarity Act has moved closer to a Senate floor vote after Majority Leader John Thune filed a cloture motion. The filing sets up Senate consideration of the digital asset market structure bill after the August recess. Meanwhile, lawmakers continue talks over stablecoin yield rules and ethics provisions before the Senate takes up the legislation.

Clarity Act Advances Toward Senate Vote

Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed the cloture motion early Saturday, August 8, for H.R. 3633. The measure covers the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which seeks clearer federal rules for digital assets. Therefore, the filing creates a procedural path for the Senate to consider the bill in September.

The move follows Thune’s decision to postpone Senate consideration until lawmakers return from the August recess. However, the cloture filing keeps the legislation positioned for action when the Senate reconvenes. The Senate can now prepare for a floor process after lawmakers complete their recess.

The Clarity Act would establish a federal framework for digital assets and define regulatory responsibilities. It would also provide clearer rules for crypto exchanges and other digital asset businesses. As a result, the bill could reshape how federal agencies oversee parts of the crypto market.

Senate Negotiations Continue Over Key Provisions

The cloture filing does not end negotiations over provisions that remain unresolved within the Clarity Act. Lawmakers continue discussions over rules covering stablecoin yields, which have become a major point of disagreement. Meanwhile, banking groups have pushed for changes to the current language.

The stablecoin yield provision could influence how digital asset companies offer returns through certain products. Banks have raised concerns about the competitive impact of those provisions on traditional financial institutions. Therefore, lawmakers may continue negotiations before the Senate begins its floor debate.

The bill also contains an ethics agreement that lawmakers continue to review during the negotiations. However, reports indicate that the White House has not provided a final position on that proposal. Consequently, lawmakers still face several policy issues before they can secure broad support.

Clarity Act Sets September Legislative Path

The latest procedural move follows several days of uncertainty around the Senate timeline for the legislation. Senate leadership had previously indicated that lawmakers would not vote on the bill before the August recess. Now, the cloture filing places the measure on track for consideration after the Senate returns.

The Senate must still complete its procedural steps before lawmakers can hold a final vote. Moreover, senators need enough support to advance the bill through the chamber and resolve outstanding disagreements. The cloture process therefore marks progress, but it does not guarantee final passage.

The Clarity Act remains a major part of the broader effort to create federal crypto market rules. Its passage could define regulatory roles and establish requirements for digital asset market participants. For now, Senate leaders have placed the legislation on the September agenda while negotiations continue.

The CLARITY Act has moved closer to a Senate floor vote after Majority Leader John Thune filed a cloture motion. The filing sets up Senate consideration of the digital asset market structure bill after the August recess. Meanwhile, lawmakers continue talks over stablecoin yield rules and ethics provisions before the Senate takes up the legislation.

Clarity Act Advances Toward Senate Vote

Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed the cloture motion early Saturday, August 8, for H.R. 3633. The measure covers the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which seeks clearer federal rules for digital assets. Therefore, the filing creates a procedural path for the Senate to consider the bill in September.

The move follows Thune’s decision to postpone Senate consideration until lawmakers return from the August recess. However, the cloture filing keeps the legislation positioned for action when the Senate reconvenes. The Senate can now prepare for a floor process after lawmakers complete their recess.

The CLARITY Act would establish a federal framework for digital assets and define regulatory responsibilities. It would also provide clearer rules for crypto exchanges and other digital asset businesses. As a result, the bill could reshape how federal agencies oversee parts of the crypto market.

Senate Negotiations Continue Over Key Provisions

The cloture filing does not end negotiations over provisions that remain unresolved within the CLARITY Act. Lawmakers continue discussions over rules covering stablecoin yields, which have become a major point of disagreement. Meanwhile, banking groups have pushed for changes to the current language.

The stablecoin yield provision could influence how digital asset companies offer returns through certain products. Banks have raised concerns about the competitive impact of those provisions on traditional financial institutions. Therefore, lawmakers may continue negotiations before the Senate begins its floor debate.

The bill also contains an ethics agreement that lawmakers continue to review during the negotiations. However, reports indicate that the White House has not provided a final position on that proposal. Consequently, lawmakers still face several policy issues before they can secure broad support.

Clarity Act Sets September Legislative Path

The latest procedural move follows several days of uncertainty around the Senate timeline for the legislation. Senate leadership had previously indicated that lawmakers would not vote on the bill before the August recess. Now, the cloture filing places the measure on track for consideration after the Senate returns.

The Senate must still complete its procedural steps before lawmakers can hold a final vote. Moreover, senators need enough support to advance the bill through the chamber and resolve outstanding disagreements. The cloture process therefore marks progress, but it does not guarantee final passage.

The CLARITY Act remains a major part of the broader effort to create federal crypto market rules. Its passage could define regulatory roles and establish requirements for digital asset market participants. For now, Senate leaders have placed the legislation on the September agenda while negotiations continue.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has filed cloture on a motion to bring the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act—known as the CLARITY Act—to the Senate floor, setting up a pivotal procedural vote tied to the next legislative window. The move comes as lawmakers prepare to return to Washington after the August recess, with the Senate expected to reconvene on Sept. 15.

Under Senate rules, invoking cloture requires a 60-vote threshold, meaning Republicans will need support from Democrats to clear the procedural hurdle. The filing does not automatically translate into final passage; instead, it is designed to advance the bill for consideration and potentially a later vote on the legislation itself.

Key takeaways

• John Thune filed cloture to take up the CLARITY Act, a procedural step requiring 60 votes.
• The Senate is expected to reconvene on Sept. 15, with the vote anticipated shortly after.
• Cloture clears a path for consideration but does not guarantee the bill will ultimately pass.
• Negotiations have stalled over disagreements, including ethics provisions and how stablecoin-related rewards should be regulated.
• Lawmakers are reportedly working on a bipartisan ethics addendum to address concerns tied to the president’s crypto-related financial interests.

Procedural push puts the CLARITY Act back on the calendar

According to the U.S. Senate Daily Press, the Majority Leader’s office confirmed that Thune filed cloture on the motion to bring the CLARITY Act to the Senate floor for consideration. The Senate Daily Press is tied to the daily publication of official Senate floor scheduling and related procedural matters, making it a direct channel for confirming when actions like cloture are submitted.

Cloture matters because it addresses debate length and related parliamentary tactics. With 60 votes required to invoke cloture, the bill’s fate in the chamber hinges on whether enough senators across party lines agree the legislation should move forward for lawmakers to debate and vote on substance.

Thune’s filing effectively repositions the CLARITY Act for action after negotiations failed to produce a deal before the August recess. Lawmakers now have additional time leading up to the September session—when procedural momentum can become substantive momentum, if the outstanding policy issues can be resolved.

Why the bill is politically and structurally significant

The CLARITY Act is widely described as a landmark effort to create a more uniform federal framework for how digital assets are categorized and overseen. The bill’s core aim is to establish a federal market structure for digital assets and clarify how regulators should apply existing securities and commodities laws.

In particular, the legislation is positioned to delineate when particular crypto assets fall under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission versus the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. That clarity is a major concern for market participants because regulatory ambiguity can complicate product development, market access, and compliance strategies.

While the procedural step now puts the bill back into focus, the filing also underscores that the legislative path is still conditional. Even if senators clear cloture, the CLARITY Act could still face further obstacles in a later floor vote depending on whether negotiators can bridge remaining disagreements.

The sticking points: ethics rules and stablecoin-related provisions

The road to a compromise has been complicated by disputes over multiple elements, including ethics provisions and rules governing stablecoin rewards. The ethics question has been particularly difficult, according to reporting referenced in the original coverage: lawmakers have been unable to settle on proposed restrictions that would limit government officials—and their families—from issuing or profiting from digital assets while in office.

These provisions are more than technical language. Ethics rules can become a defining political battleground because they shape how lawmakers manage perceived conflicts of interest, especially in a sector where public officials may hold or interact with crypto investments.

Beyond ethics, stablecoin rewards have also reportedly been a source of friction. While the specific policy details are not laid out in the available text, the inclusion of stablecoin-related reward rules indicates that negotiators have to align on how certain yield or incentivization mechanics should be treated under U.S. oversight.

Until those issues are resolved, the CLARITY Act’s movement in the Senate may be best understood as a procedural advance—an effort to keep negotiations alive rather than a guarantee that consensus is close.

Reported attempt to break the ethics impasse

To address the ethics impasse, lawmakers have reportedly been working on a bipartisan addendum. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph referenced a proposal aimed at addressing Democratic concerns about President Donald Trump’s crypto-related financial interests, with Bloomberg reporting that the approach would require the president to divest from certain crypto-related businesses.

The rationale for such an addendum is straightforward: rather than relying solely on broad restrictions on officials and their families, negotiators may seek a targeted solution tied to the president’s holdings. The shift matters because it could alter the negotiation dynamics between parties—potentially allowing the ethics language to become more politically acceptable while still addressing conflict-of-interest concerns.

However, the existence of a proposed ethics framework does not itself confirm that the final language will be agreed upon or adopted. The next procedural vote will signal whether enough senators believe the bill is worth taking up despite remaining uncertainties, and it may also pressure negotiators to finalize language quickly enough to avoid further delays.

What to watch after Sept. 15

With the Senate expected to reconvene on Sept. 15 and the cloture vote anticipated soon after, the immediate question is whether Democrats will provide the additional votes needed to reach the 60 threshold. If they do, lawmakers can proceed to debate substance—but readers should still watch for how ethics and stablecoin-reward provisions evolve, since those items have been central to the breakdown in earlier negotiations.